SDG Indicator 2.4.1 –The Indicator’s

SDG Indicator 2.4.1 – The Indicator’s Framework

Virtual Training

(September–October 2020)

Arbab Asfandiyar KhanESS Division (FAO)

DENOMINATOR OF THE INDICATOR

2

𝑆𝐷𝐺 2.4.1 =𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

𝑨𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒂

Land use classes Aggregated land classes

1.Land under temporary crops

Arable

landsCrop

landAgricultural

land Land used

for agriculture

2.Land under temporary meadows

and pastures

3.Land temporarily fallow

4.Land under permanent crops

5. Land under permanent meadows

and pastures

6. Land under farm buildings and

farmyards

7. Forest and other wooded land

8. Area used for aquaculture

9.Other area not elsewhere classified

LAND TENURE

3

is excluded

Owned and operated: Included

Rented-in: Included

Other (occupied, borrowed for free, including common land managed by the holding): Included

INDICATOR'S FRAMEWORK

Dimension Theme Sub-indicator Farm type Reference period

Eco

nom

ic 1. Land productivity Farm output value per hectare All types Last calendar yr.

2. Profitability Net farm income All types Last 3 calendar yrs.

3. Resilience Risk mitigation mechanisms All types Last calendar yr.

4

En

vir

on

men

tal

4. Soil health Prevalence of soil degradation All types Last 3 calendar yrs.

5. Water use Variation in water availability All types Last 3 calendar yrs.

6. Fertilizer risk Management of fertilizers All types Last calendar yr.

7. Pesticide risk Management of pesticides All types Last calendar yr.

8. BiodiversityUse of agro-biodiversity

supportive practices All types Last calendar yr.

Soci

al

9. Decent

employmentWage rate in agriculture

Farms hiring

unskilled labourLast calendar yr.

10. Food securityFood Insecurity Experience Scale

(FIES)Household farms Last 12 months

11. Land tenure Secure tenure rights to land All types Last calendar yr.

VARIABLE FORMULATION TO COMPUTATION

5

1. FARM OUTPUT VALUE PER HECTARE

Dimension: Economic

Theme: Land Productivity

Coverage: All farm types

Reference period: last calendar year

6


Formula: Variables and data items:

𝑭𝒂𝒓𝒎 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒆 =𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (𝐿𝐶𝑈)

𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠)

1) Value of output = Quantities x farm gate prices of:

5 main crops and its by-products produced by the holding in a reference period

5 main livestock and its products produced by the holding in a reference period

Other on-farm products produced by the holding in a reference period

2) Agricultural land area of the farm

3) Categories of farms

4) Farm output value per hectare the entire distribution of farms selected as part of the sample

7

CROPS AND BY-PRODUCTS LIST (EXAMPLE)

8

Crops

Avocado Orange

Banana Paprika

Beans. Pawpaw/papaya

Cabbage Peach.

Cassava Pearl millet

Coffee Pigeon pea

Cotton Pineapple

Custade apple Rice

Finger millet( Sorghum

Fodder trees Soybean

Ground bean Sugar cane

Groundnut. Sunflower

Guava Sweet potato

Lemon Tanaposi

Maize Tea

Mango Tobacco

Mexican apple Tomato

Naartje (tangerine) Wheat

Onion Other (specify)

By-products

Wheat - Stalks

Rice – Straw / Husk

Cotton – Sticks

Sugar cane – Tops

Maize – Stalks / straw

Mustard – Straw

OTHER ON-FARM ACTIVITIES

9

1. On-farm processing of agricultural products:

Grain milling: production of flour, groats, meal or pellets of wheat, rye, oats, maize (corn) or other cereal grains

Rice milling: production of husked, milled, polished, glazed, parboiled or converted rice; production of rice flour

Processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables

Manufacture of crude vegetable oil: olive oil, soya bean oil, palm oil, sunflower seed oil, cottonseed oil, rape, colza or

mustard oil, linseed oil, etc.

Manufacture of wine

Distillation of spirit drinks

Manufacture of tobacco products (cigars, chewing tobacco, etc.)

Processing and preserving meat

Manufacture of dairy products

Manufacture of leather and related products

2. Selling of holding's products at the market/shop (incl. preparation, packaging and transport of processed products)

3. Production of forestry products

4. Production, processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs

Production of fish, crustaceans and molluscs

Processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs

5. Production of renewable energy

6. Contractual work for other holdings using the production means of this holding

7. Accommodation, restaurant, catering and other leisure/educational activities

8. Making handicrafts

9. Training of animals

10. Management and/or administration for the agricultural holding

11. Other (specify)

12. None

CATEGORIZATION OF FARMS

10

HID Holding sector Holding activity Holding irrigation Category of farm

001 Household Crop Yes Crop, HH sector, irrigation

013 Household Mixed Yes Mixed, HH sector, irrigation

021 Household Livestock Yes Livestock, HH sector, irrigation

031 Non-Household Crop Yes Crop, NON-HH sector, irrigation

034 Non-Household Livestock Yes Livestock, NON-HH sector, irrigation

101 Non-Household Mixed Yes Mixed, NON-HH sector, irrigation

… … … … …

Step 1: Categorize farms by type

FARM OUTPUT VALUE PER HECTARE BY CATEGORY

11

Step 2: calculate the farm output value per hectare by category of farms:

𝑭𝒂𝒓𝒎 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒆(𝒊, 𝒇) =𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (𝐿𝐶𝑈)𝑖,𝑓

𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠)𝑖,𝑓

Where; 𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑖,𝑓 is the total value of production of the i-th agriculturalholding belonging to a given category of farm (with 𝑓 going from 1 to 12);𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠)𝑖,𝑓 is the agricultural land area, as expressed in hectare ofthe i-th agricultural holding belonging to a given category of farm (with 𝑓 going from 1 to 12)

TOTAL OUTPUT VALUE OF A HOLDING

Example:

Farm output value = 𝒊𝒄𝒒𝒊,𝒄 ∗ 𝒑𝒊,𝒄

12

HID

Crop, by-product crop,

livestock, by-product livestock, on-farm

commodities

Quantity in

corresponding

units

Farm gate

prices per unit

Farm output

value in LCU

001 Aman (rice) 80 750 60,000.00

001 Boro (rice) 50 650 32,500.00

001 Maize 35 780 27,300.00

001 Straw 60 480 28,800.00

001 Husk 20 400 8,000.00

Total farm output value 156,600.00

CALCULATION OF 90TH PERCENTILE AND THRESHOLDSStep 3: Once the farm output value per hectare has been calculated, the values are sorted from the lowest value to the highest productivity by categories of farms. The value of farm output value per hectare related to the 90th percentile is derived accordingly for each category, using the following formula:

𝟗𝟎𝒕𝒉 = 𝟎. 𝟗 𝒙 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 (𝒃𝒚 𝒇𝒂𝒓𝒎 𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒈𝒐𝒓𝒚)

13

Percentiles Number of farmsFarm output value per hectare

(in US$, per year)

5% 1 100

10% 2 100

15% 3 100

20% 4 100

25% 5 200

30% 6 200

35% 7 200

40% 8 200

45% 9 400

50% 10 400

55% 11 400

60% 12 400

65% 13 400

70% 14 600

75% 15 600

80% 16 600

85% 17 600

90% 18 600

95% 19 600

100% 20 700

Establish thresholds for sustainability by

category

2/3 of the 90th

percentile

(in local currency unit)

1/3 of the 90th

percentile

(in local currency unit)

400 200


Step 4: classify the agricultural area of the farm according to the followingsustainability criteria:

In general, the sustainability status of agricultural holdings is determined depending on whether(or not) the farm output value per hectare is above, below or in between the thresholds set forthe category of farms it belongs to. This is to say that, for each category of farm, the computedfarm output value per hectare must be benchmarked against the following thresholds forsustainability by category:

Green (desirable): if the farm FOVH is equal to or greater than the value corresponding to 2/3 of the 90th percentile (estimated for the distribution of categories of farms to which this farm belongs)

Yellow (acceptable): if the farm FOVH is equal to or greater than the value corresponding to 1/3 but less than 2/3 of the 90th percentile (estimated for the distribution of categories of farms to which this farm belongs)

Red (unsustainable): if the farm FOVH is less than the value corresponding to 1/3 of the 90th percentile (estimated for the distribution of categories of farms to which this farm belongs)

Step 5: calculate proportion of agricultural area for the indicator by sustainability status

14

EXAMPLE

15

S.No. Category of farm 90 percentile value2/3 of the 90

percentile1/3 of 90 percentile

1 Crop, HH sector, irrigation 600 400 200

2 Livestock, HH sector, irrigation 800 533 267

3 Mixed, HH sector, irrigation 700 467 233

4 Crop, HH sector, non-irrigation … … …

5 Livestock, HH sector, non-irrigation … … …

6 Mixed, HH sector, non-irrigation … … …

7 Crop, non-HH sector, irrigation … … …

8 Livestock, non-HH sector, irrigation … … …

9 Mixed, non-HH sector, irrigation … … …

10 Crop, sector, non-irrigation … … …

11 Livestock, sector, non-irrigation … … …

12 Mixed, sector, non-irrigation … … …

Sustainability thresholds are calculated for each category of farm:

EXAMPLE

16

Sustainability assessment is carried out for each farm belonging to a particular category

HID Land productivity Belongs to

Category

90 percentile

value of the

category

2/3 of the 90

percentile

1/3 of 90

percentile

001 900Crop, HH sector,

irrigation600 400 200

002 300Livestock, HH

sector, irrigation800 533 267

003 200Mixed, HH

sector, irrigation700 467 233

…

HID Agriculture area (in hectare) Sustainability status

001 0.90 Desirable

002 0.20 Acceptable

003 0.20 Unsustainable

…

2. NET FARM INCOME (NFI)

Dimension: Economic

Theme: Profitability

Coverage: All farms types

Reference period: last three calendar year

17

2. NET FARM INCOME (NFI)

Data items: Can be computed according to two approaches i.e. sophisticated or simplified options:

Sophisticated option:

Step 1: calculate Net Farm Income using formula:

𝑁𝐹𝐼 = 𝐶𝑅 + 𝑌𝑘 − 𝑂𝐸 − 𝐷𝑒𝑝 + ∆𝐼𝑛

NFI = Total Net Farm Income

CR = Total farm cash receipts including direct program payments

𝒀𝒌 = Income in kind

OE = Total operating expenses after rebates (including costs of labour)

Dep = Depreciation

Δ Inv = Value of inventory change.

18

NET FARM INCOME (NFI)

19

Value of output = Total farm cash receipts +

Direct program payments + Income in kind +

Change in inventory

Cost = Operating + Fixed cost +

depreciation

Value of output = Quantity X Prices

- Crops

- Livestock

- Other on-farm activities / products

Direct program payments

Income in kind

Value of inventory change

Operating Expenses:

- Labor expenses (Cash wages + in

kind)

- Fertilizers expenses

- Pesticides expenses

- Fuel expenses

- Electricity expenses

- Costs for feeding animals

- Irrigation cost

- Taxes

- Depreciation charges

- Others

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/21-010-x/21-010-x2014001-eng.pdf?st=_8V1ikX6

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/21-010-x/21-010-x2014001-eng.pdf?st=_8V1ikX6

SIMPLIFIED OPTIONS

Simplified option (1):

To be used when the detailed data are not available at farm level (better adapted to smallholders and household sector):

Output quantity and farm gate prices of crops and livestock and its products and

by-products marketed or self-consumed

Operating expenses including i.e. inputs quantity and its market prices

Output quantity and farm gate prices of other on-farm activities carried out on

the holding e.g. aquaculture or agroforestry (in addition to crops and livestock)

Input quantity and prices utilized in the production of the other on-farm outputsFor this option depreciation and value of inventory change are not considered.

Simplified option (2):

Respondent’s declaration on agricultural holding’s profitability over the last 3

calendar years.

Simplified option 2 is used in case of SDG indicator survey questionnaire

20

2. NET FARM INCOME (CONT’D)

Step 2: classify the agricultural area of the farm according to the following sustainability criteria:

Green (desirable): NFI/profitability is above zero for all past 3 consecutive years

Yellow (acceptable): NFI/profitability is above zero for at least 1 of the past 3 consecutive years

Red (unsustainable): NFI/profitability is below zero for all of the past 3 consecutive years

21

HID Number of times the holding was profitable Sustainability status

001 Profitable in two out of the three years Acceptable

002 Profitable in three out of the three years Desirable

181 Unprofitable in all three years Unsustainable

EXAMPLE – BANGLADESH PILOT RESULTS (2018-19)

22

Sustainability status (sub-indicator # 2)Agriculture area in

Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 237.5 47%

Acceptable 250.0 49%

Non-sustainable 22.3 4%

Total 509.8 100%

Step 3: calculate proportion of agricultural area for the indicator by sustainability status.

3. RISK MITIGATION MECHANISMS

Dimension: Economic

Theme: Resilience


Reference period: Last calendar year

23

3. RISK MITIGATION MECHANISMS

Risk mitigation mechanisms:

1. Access to or availed Insurance

2. Access to or availed Credit (both formal, informal)

3. On farm diversification (i.e. share of a single agricultural commodity or activity is not greater than 66% in the total value of production of the holding).

Access to credit and/or insurance is defined here as when a given service is available and the holder has enough means to obtain the service (i.e. the required documents, collateral, positive credit history, etc.).

Broadly, access to one or more the above 3 factors will allow the farm to prevent, resist, adapt and recover from external shocks such as, floods, droughts, market failure (e.g. price shock), climate shock and pest/animal diseases.

24

3. RISK MITIGATION MECHANISMS (RMM)

25

On-farm diversification. It captures the share of the value of production of one single agricultural commodity over total value of production of the agricultural. This variable is calculated according to the below formula:

O𝑛 − 𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖,𝑐

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖

Where 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖,𝑐 is the value of production of the c-th agricultural commodity related to the i-th agricultural holding and 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖is the total value of production of the i-th agricultural holding.

SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA

A farm holding is considered resilient if it has availed or has the means to access the risk mitigation mechanisms as follows:

Green (desirable): Access to or availed at least two of three mitigation mechanisms.

Yellow (acceptable): Access to or availed at least one of the three mitigation mechanisms.

Red (unsustainable): No access to the three mitigation mechanisms.

26

Step 1. classify the agricultural area of the farm according to the followingsustainability criteria:

EXAMPLE

27

HID

Share of

commodit

y #1 in

output

value

Share

commodit

y #2 in

output

value

Share of

commodit

y #3 in

output

value

On-farm

diversificati

on

Access to

credit

Access to

insurance

Total number

of

Risk

mitigation

mechanisms

adopted

Sustainability

Status

001 76% 24% 0% 0 1 1 2 Desirable

003 33% 33% 34% 1 0 0 1 Acceptable

004 100% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 Non-sustainable

Source: farm survey (pilot study), Bangladesh 2018-19

EXAMPLE: AGRICULTURAL AREA BY SUSTAINABILITY STATUS

28

Sustainability status (sub-indicator #5)Agriculture area in

Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 286.3 56%


Unsustainable 74.6 15%

Total 509.8 100%

Source: farm survey (pilot study), Bangladesh 2018-19

Step 2. calculate and report the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status

4. PREVALENCE OF SOIL DEGRADATION

Dimension: Environmental

Theme: Soil health


Reference period: last three calendar years

29

4. PREVALENCE OF SOIL DEGRADATION

4 main threats:

1. Soil erosion

2. Reduction in soil fertility

3. Salinization

4. Waterlogging

5. Other – specify

6. None of the above

30


Step 1. classify the agricultural area of the farm according to the following sustainabilitycriteria:

Green (desirable): The combined area affected by any of the four selected threats to soil health is less than 10% of the total agriculture area of the farm.

Yellow (acceptable): The combined area affected by any of the four selected threats to soil health is between 10% and 50% of the total agriculture area of the farm.

Red (unsustainable): The combined area affected by any of the four selected threats to soil health is above 50% of the total agriculture area of the farm.

31

BANGLADESH PILOT RESULTS (2018-19)

32

HID Soil erosion

Reduction

in soil

fertility

Waterloggin

gSalinization

Agricultural

area

Agricultural

area

affected

Area

affected

Prevalence

of soil

degradation:

Sustainabilit

y status

001 No

Reduction

in soil

fertility

Waterloggin

gNo 0.90 0.40 45% Acceptable

003 No No No No 0.20 0 0% Desirable

004 Soil Erosion

Reduction

in soil

fertility

No No 0.27 0.20 74%Non-

sustainable

005 No

Reduction

in soil

fertility

Waterloggin

gNo 0.61 0.35 58%

Non-

sustainable

006 Soil Erosion

Reduction

in soil

fertility

No No 0.78 0.50 64%Non-

sustainable

007 Soil Erosion NoWaterloggin

gNo 2.15 1.62 75%

Non-

sustainable


Step 2. calculate and report the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status

33


Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 259.8 51%



Total 509.8 100%

5. VARIATION IN WATER AVAILABILITY


Theme: Water use


Reference period: Last three calendar years

34

5. VARIATION IN WATER AVAILABILITY (VWA)


Green (desirable): Water availability remains stable over the years for farms irrigating crops on more than 10% of its agriculture area. Default result for farms irrigating less than 10% of their agricultural area

Yellow (acceptable): uses water to irrigate crops on at least 10% of the agriculture area of the farm, does not know whether water availability remains stable over the years, or experiences reduction on water availability over the years, but there is an organisation that effectively allocates water among users.

Red (unsustainable): in all other cases.

35


36

HIDReduction in

water availability

Organization

dealing

with water

allocation

Area

irrigated

Variation in

water

availability:

Sustainability

status

001No, water is always available in sufficient

quantity 89.7% Desirable

002Yes, water level in my well(s) is progressively

going down

Yes, and they are

working well71.4% Acceptable

036Yes, water level in my well(s) is progressively

going down

No, there are

none74.0% Unsustainable

REPORTING THE SUB-INDICATOR

Step 2. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status

37

Sustainability status (sub-indicator #6)Agriculture area

in Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 443.0 87%

Acceptable 11.3 2%


Total 509.8 100%

6. MANAGEMENT OF FERTILIZERS


Theme: Fertilizer risk



38


39

Management measures:

1. Follow protocols as per extension service or retail outlet directions or local regulations, not exceeding recommended doses

2. Use organic source of nutrients (including manure or composting residues) alone, or in combination with synthetic or mineral fertilizers

3. Use legumes as a cover crop, or component of a multi/crop or pasture system to reduce fertilizer inputs

4. Distribute synthetic or mineral fertilizer application over the growing period

5. Consider soil type and climate in deciding fertilizer application doses and frequencies

6. Use soil sampling at least every 5 years to perform nutrient budget calculations

7. Perform site-specific nutrient management or precision farming

8. Use buffer strips along water courses


40


Green (desirable): The farm uses fertilizers but take at least 4 specific measures to mitigateenvironmental risks. Default result for farms not using fertilizers

Yellow (acceptable): The farm uses fertilizers and takes at least two measures to mitigate environmental risks

Red (unsustainable): The farm uses fertilizer and does not take any of the specific measures to mitigate environmental risks


41

HIDUse of

fertilizer

Measures Management of fertilizers: Sustainability status

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8Total

adopted

001 Yes 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Acceptable

002 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-sustainable

003 Yes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Acceptable

004 Yes 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acceptable

005 Yes 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acceptable

006 Yes 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 Acceptable

007 Yes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Acceptable

008 Yes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Acceptable

009 Yes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acceptable

037 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desirable

038 Yes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Non-sustainable

039 Yes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 Desirable

040 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desirable


Step 2. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status

42


Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 240.0 47%



Total agricultural area (in hectares) 509.8 100%

7. MANAGEMENT OF PESTICIDES


Theme: Pesticides Risk


Reference period: last calendar year43


44

Health measures:

1. Adherence to label directions for pesticide use (including use of protection equipment while

applying pesticides)

2. Maintenance and cleansing of protection equipment after use

3. Safe disposal of waste (cartons, bottles and bags)

Environmental measures:

1. Adherence to label directions for pesticide application

2. Adopt any of the above Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs): adjust planting time, apply crop

spacing, crop rotation, mixed cropping or inter-cropping

3. Perform biological pest control or use biopesticides

4. Adopt pasture rotation to suppress livestock pest population

5. Systematic removal of plant parts attacked by pests

6. Maintenance and cleansing of spray equipment after use

7. Use one pesticide no more than two times or in mixture in a season to avoid pesticide

resistance


45


Green (desirable): The farm uses only moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides (WHO Class II or III). In this case, it adheres to all three health-related measures and at least four out of seven of the environment-related measures. Default result for farms not using pesticides.

Yellow (acceptable): The farm uses only moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides (WHO Class II or III) and takes at least two measures each from health and environment related measures

Red (unsustainable): The farm uses highly or extremely hazardous pesticides (WHO Class Ia or Ib), illegal pesticides, or uses moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides without taking specific measures to mitigate environmental or health risks associated with their use (fewer than two from each category).


46

HID

Use

pesticide

s

Type of pesticides usedEnvironmental

measuresHealth Measures

Sustainability

status

001 Yes Highly, extremely hazardous, illegal 3 2 Non-sustainable

002 Yes Moderately or slightly hazardous 2 2 Acceptable


004 Yes Moderately or slightly hazardous 1 3 Non-sustainable








012 Yes Moderately or slightly hazardous 4 3 Desirable


014 Yes Moderately or slightly hazardous 4 3 Desirable


Step 2: calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status

47


Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 102.9 20%



Total agricultural area (in hectares) 509.8 100%

8. USE OF AGRO-BIODIVERSITY-SUPPORTIVE PRACTICES


Theme: Biodiversity

Coverage: All farm Types


48

USE OF AGRO-BIODIVERSITY-SUPPORTIVE PRACTICES

49

Set of criteria for countries with no organic certification:

1. Leaves at least 10% of the holding area for natural or diverse vegetation. This can include natural pasture/grassland , maintaining wildflower strips, stone and wood heaps, trees or hedgerows, natural ponds or wetlands.

2. Farm does not use medically important antimicrobials as growth promoters.3. At least two of the following contribute to farm production: 1) temporary crops, 2)

pasture, 3) permanent crops, 4) trees on farm, 5) livestock or animal products, and 6) aquaculture.

4. Practices crop or crop/pasture rotation involving at least 2 crops or crops and pastures on at least 80% of the farm cultivated area (excluding permanent crops and permanent pastures) over a period of 3 years. In case of a 2-crop rotation, the 2 crops have to be from different plant genus, e.g. a grass plus a legume, or a grass plus a tuber etc.

5. Livestock includes locally adapted breeds.

USE OF AGRO-BIODIVERSITY-SUPPORTIVE PRACTICES

50

Set of criteria for countries with organic certification:

1. Leaves at least 10% of the holding area for natural or diverse vegetation. This can include natural pasture/grassland , maintaining wildflower strips, stone and wood heaps, trees or hedgerows, natural ponds or wetlands.

2. Farm produces agricultural products that are organically certified, or its products are undergoing the certification process (applies only to countries with certification)

3. Farm does not use medically important antimicrobials as growth promoters.4. At least two of the following contribute to farm production: 1) temporary crops, 2)

pasture, 3) permanent crops, 4) trees on farm, 5) livestock or animal products, and 6) aquaculture.

5. Practices crop or crop/pasture rotation involving at least 2 crops or crops and pastures on at least 80% of the farm cultivated area (excluding permanent crops and permanent pastures) over a period of 3 years. In case of a 2-crop rotation, the 2 crops have to be from different plant genus, e.g. a grass plus a legume, or a grass plus a tuber etc.

6. Livestock includes locally adapted breeds.

8. USE OF BIODIVERSITY-SUPPORTIVE PRACTICES (UBSP)

51


Sustainability status for countries with organic:

• Green (desirable): The agricultural holding meets at least three of the above criteria

• Yellow (acceptable): The agricultural holding meets at least one of the above criteria

• Red (unsustainable): The agricultural holding meets none of the above criteria

Sustainability status for countries with no organic:

• Green (desirable): The agricultural holding meets at least two of the above criteria

• Yellow (acceptable): The agricultural holding meets at least one of the above criteria

• Red (unsustainable): The agricultural holding meets none of the above criteria

Step 2: calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status

9. WAGE RATE IN AGRICULTURE

Dimension: Social

Theme: Decent employment

Reference period: Last calender year

Coverage: Not applicable to farms that employ only family labour

52

9. WAGE RATE IN AGRICULTURE

Step 1. calculate the daily wage rate according to the following formula:

𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟 =𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑑∗ 8


Green (desirable): If the wage rate paid to unskilled labour is above the minimum national wage rate or minimum agricultural sector wage rate (if available). Default result for farms not hiring labour.

Yellow (acceptable): if the wage rate paid to unskilled labour is equals to the minimum national wage rate or minimum agricultural sector wage rate (if available).

Red (unsustainable): if the wage rate paid to unskilled labour is below the minimum national wage rate or minimum agricultural sector wage rate (if available).

53

REPORTING THE INDICATOR

Step 3. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status.

54


Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 501.3 98%

Acceptable 0.0 0%


Total 509.8 100%

10. FOOD INSECURITY EXPERIENCE SCALE (FIES)

Dimension: Social

Theme: Food security

Coverage: Only household farms

Reference period: Last 12 months

55

THE EIGHT QUESTIONS

56

During the last 12 months, was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) were worried that you

would not have enough food to eat because of a lack of money?

Still thinking about the last 12 months, was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) were unable

to eat healthy and nutritious food because of a lack of money?

Was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) ate only a few kinds of foods because of a lack of

money or other resources?

Was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) had to skip a meal because there was not enough

money or other resources to get food?

Still thinking about the last 12 months, was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) ate less than

you thought you should because of a lack of money?

Was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) ran out of food because of a lack of money or other

resources?

Was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) were hungry but did not eat because there was not

enough money or other resources for food?

During the last 12 months, was there a time when you (or any other member in the household) went without eating for a

whole day because of a lack of money or other resources?

CHARACTERIZING AGRICULTURAL HOLDING BY SUSTAINABILITY STATUS

1. Preparing the data for analysis

2. Parameter estimation:

Item Parameters – refer to and derived from the 8 questions

Respondent parameters – refer to and derived from the number of people who responded to the questions

3. Statistical validation

4. Calculation of the sustainability status of the agricultural holding

57

1: PREPARING THE DATA FOR ANALYSIS

To prepare the data collected through the FIES survey module for analysis, each item should be coded, so that: 2 is used for a "no" response; 1 is used for a "yes" response.

58

HID C_C03000 C_C04000 C_C05000 C_C06000 C_C07000 C_C08000 C_C09000 C_C10000

001 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2

002 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

003 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

004 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

005 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

006 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

007 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

008 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

009 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

010 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

011 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2

012 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

013 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

014 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

016 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

017 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

018 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

1: PREPARING THE DATA FOR ANALYSIS

HID Worried Healthy Fewfood Skipped Ateless Runout Hungry Whlday

1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No

2 No No No No No No No No

3 Yes No No No No No No No


5 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No






11 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No


13 Yes Yes No No No No No Yes


15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

16 Yes Yes No No No No No No

17 Yes Yes No No No No No No

18 Yes No No No No No No No59

Add standard labels for the eight questions on which data is collected

2: PARAMETER ESTIMATION

The methodology underlying the estimation of parameters for the prevalence of food insecurity is based on the Item Response Theory (IRT)

The IRT is a quantitative measure of a non-observable construction --latent trait

The Rasch model is one of several models in IRT and is applied for the analysis of FIES data.

60

2: PARAMETER ESTIMATION (CONTI..)Item Parameters:

61

Andersen LR test Z= 54.889 42 0.0877

R1c test R1c= 216.118 42 0.0000

Whday 3.69083 0.71339 39.276 6 0.0000 -0.865 0.340 -1.261

Hungry 2.60101 0.53205 14.307 6 0.0264 -1.488 -1.067 -0.101

Runout 1.88428 0.45995 14.326 6 0.0262 -1.421 -0.789 -0.306

Ateless -0.30206 0.34940 15.308 6 0.0180 -2.991 -3.218 -1.669

Skipped 1.31492 0.41843 21.018 6 0.0018 -1.179 -0.872 -0.763

Fewfood -2.58639 0.32558 10.372 6 0.1098 2.380 0.737 3.088

Healthy -3.15808 0.32482 74.523 6 0.0000 2.945 -0.351 5.100

Worried -3.44452 0.32598 6.117 6 0.4102 0.265 1.410 0.986

Items parameters std Err. R1c df p-value Outfit Infit U

Difficulty Standardized

In the table above, the least severe parameter is “worried”, whereas the most severe is “whlday”.

2: PARAMETER ESTIMATION (CONTI..)

Respondents parameters:

A respondent's raw score is used to calculate the respondent parameter.

The raw score is the number of affirmative responses given to the eight FIES questions, i.e. an integer number with a value between zero and eight. This is why the respondents’ parameters are nine.

Important note: an essential point to understand is that every respondent who answers "yes” to the same number of questions (irrespective of which ones) will be assigned the same raw score.

The raw score can only be used as an ordinal measure of food insecurity, meaning that we know that someone with a raw score of 4 is more food insecure than someone with a raw score of 2, but we do not know the exact difference in food insecurity severity between these two respondents.

62


63

8 8 5.024 1.799 4 7.64

--------------------------------------------------------------

7 7 3.442 1.176 2 6.83 0.0000

--------------------------------------------------------------

6 6 2.385 1.046 4 5.95 -7.8792

--------------------------------------------------------------

5 5 1.411 1.046 6 5.05 -6.0684

--------------------------------------------------------------

4 4 0.271 1.134 9 4.08 -7.5744

--------------------------------------------------------------

3 3 -1.272 1.192 14 2.97 -15.4243

--------------------------------------------------------------

2 2 -2.586 1.110 32 1.97 -30.8169

--------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 -3.628 1.175 57 1.15 -58.6220

--------------------------------------------------------------

0 0 -5.093 1.750 292 0.37

Group Score parameters std Err. Freq. Score ll

Ability Expected


64

Once the item severity, raw score and respondent parameters have been estimated, the standard metric to derive comparable food insecurity prevalence rates can be derived by filling the estimated parameters excel file developed by the FIES team at FAO (here).

http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/using-fies/en/


65


66

Finally, once the parameters have been added to the excel sheet, we get the following output table:

The above table gives, for each raw score, the probability to be «moderate+severe» food

insecure and the probability to be «severe» food insecure.

3: CALCULATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY STATUS OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING:

Step 1. classify household farms by sustainability status according to the following criteria (level on FIES scale):

Green (desirable): Mild food insecurity: if the probability of a household of the holder of the holding to be moderate to severe food insecure is less than 0.5 and the probability to be severe food insecure is less than 0.5.

Yellow (acceptable)*: Moderate food insecurity: if the probability of a household of the holder of the holding to be moderate to severe food insecure is greater than 0.5 and the probability to be severe food insecure is less than 0.5.

Red (unsustainable): Severe food insecurity: if the probability of a household of the holder of the holding to be severe food insecure is greater than 0.5.

Step 2. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status of the householdfarm

67

Important note: Acceptable * here is used to be consistent with FAO terminology used in context of 2.4.1. Thislevel of moderate food insecurity is by no means endorsed by FAO to be acceptable.

3: CALCULATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY STATUS OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING:Step 3. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status of the householdfarm

68

3: CALCULATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY STATUS OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING:

Step 3. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status of thehousehold farm

69


Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 486.8 95%

Acceptable 17.2 3%


Total 509.8 100%

11. SECURE TENURE RIGHTS TO LAND

Dimension: Social

Theme: Land tenure


Reference period: Last calendar year 70

11. SECURE TENURE RIGHTS TO LAND

Step 1. classify farms by sustainability status according to the following criteria:

Green (desirable): has a formal document with the name of the holder/holding on it, or has the right to sell or bequeath any of the parcel of the holding

Yellow (acceptable): has a formal document even if the name of the holder/holding is not on it

Red (unsustainable): no positive responses to any of the criteria listed

71

HIDFormal

document

Name

on it

Right to

sell

Right to

bequeath

Sustainability

status

001 Yes Yes Yes Yes Desirable

002 Yes No No No Acceptable

050 Yes Yes Yes Yes Desirable

051 No No No No Non-sustainable


Step 2. calculate the proportion of agricultural area by sustainability status.

72


Hectare

Proportion of

agriculture area

Desirable 437.0 86%

Acceptable 58.0 11%


Total 509.8 100%

THANK YOU

Contact us:

[email protected]

[email protected] – Arbab Asfandiyar Khan

73

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

MAIN MODIFICATIONS

74

Description First proposal (2017) Revised proposal (approved by

IAEG-SDG in 2018)

Data collection instrumentA combination from multiple

sourcesSingle source (farm survey)

Use of alternative data sources Not considered Considered under conditions

Type of sub-indicator OutcomeMixed (outcomes, awareness,

behavior, practices, perception)

Number of sub-indicators 9 11 (see next Table)

Sustainability conditions Y/N Three levels

Aggregation At farm level At country level

ReportingOne single aggregate

indicatorDashboard + aggregate indicator

MAIN MODIFICATIONS

75

No.First proposal – 2017 Revised and approved proposal – 2018

Theme Sub-indicators Theme Sub-indicators

1 Land productivityFarm output value per farm

agricultural areaLand productivity

Farm output value per

hectare

2 Farm profitability Net farm income Profitability Net farm income

3 Financial Resilience Access to financial services Resilience Risk mitigation mechanisms

4 Soil health Soil health Soil healthPrevalence of soil

degradation

5

Water health

Water use Water use Variation in water availability

6 Water quality Fertilizer risk Management of fertilizers

7 Pesticide risk Management of pesticides

8 BiodiversityHeterogeneity of agricultural

landscapeBiodiversity

Use of biodiversity-supportive

practices

9 Decent work Wage rate in agriculture Decent employment Wage rate in agriculture

10 Well-being Agricultural household

income Food security

Food insecurity experience

scale (FIES)

11 Access to land Secure rights to land tenure Land tenure Secure tenure rights to land

ITEMS, DOMAINS AND FOOD INSECURITY

76

Items Variables label Variable contentDomains of the

food insecurity

Assumed severity of food

insecurity

1 WorriedFelt anxiety about having enough food at any

time during the previous 12 months

uncertainty and worry about

foodMild

2 Healthy

Not able to eat healthy and nutritious food

because of lack of money or other resources to

get food

inadequate food quality Mild

3 Fewfood

Consumed a diet based on only few kinds of

foods because of lack of money or other

resources to get food

inadequate food quality Mild

4 Skipped

Did not eat breakfast, lunch or dinner [or skipped

a meal] because there was not enough money or

other resources to get food

insufficient food quantity Moderate

5 AtelessAte less than they thought they should because

of lack of money or other resources to get foodinsufficient food quantity Moderate

6 RunoutHousehold ran out of food because of lack of

money or other resources to get foodinsufficient food quantity Moderate

7 HungryFelt hungry but didn’t eat because there was not

enough money or other resources for foodinsufficient food quantity Severe

8 Whlday Went without eating for a whole day insufficient food quantity Severe

SDG Indicator 2.4.1 –The Indicator’s

Documents

Transcript of SDG Indicator 2.4.1 –The Indicator’s